Friend Bramble.

The PH who was there stated that the young lady "did the right thing", and obeying the PH's instructions can ahrdly be considered otherwise without good evidence..
The section of my post which you snipped, included a quote from a forum member who insisted that she was not doing the right thing. They cannot both be correct.
As the PH made a statement of fact, rather than merely one of opinion, anyone continuing to contradict him will calling him a liar, or incompetent...., and we need to think hard before doing so.

That's the logic of the matter.

Some apparent discrepancies have been mentioned, but to what point?
The vehicle is brought up, they walk away from it, and it needs to be brought up again? Someone needs to be told twice to do something? Eyewitnesses differ in their recollection of the order in which minor details occur and which have no significant bearing on the main issue under discussion? Again, I ask, what is the point?

As to the discussion of who was where.
The "thick bush" to which you refer was not so tall as to obscure the back-line of an animal which is less than waist height. The normal frame of reference for any person attempting to determine the whereabouts of othert human members of the party is to look for upright persons unless there is good reason to think otherwise.

The point that I wish to make is that there were good reasons for her to shoot, and shoot quickly. The arguments that she should not depend on a clarity of hindsight and an availability of time that were not available to any member of the party. That is why I argue that the condemnation and the willingness to use biased terms such as "ND" are ungenerous and unhelpful.

As an aside, the use of the term "insensitive" was not mine. If you wish to argue with it, then you may do so with Mr Kruger, by fiollowing the link that I provided.

Please consider....Peter